From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. Kenworthy

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 3, 2012
470 F. App'x 131 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-7712

04-03-2012

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GEORGE KENWORTHY, Respondent - Appellee.

Lance Adam Goldman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02266-BO)

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance Adam Goldman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Lance Adam Goldman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goldman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Goldman v. Kenworthy

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 3, 2012
470 F. App'x 131 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Goldman v. Kenworthy

Case Details

Full title:LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GEORGE KENWORTHY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 3, 2012

Citations

470 F. App'x 131 (4th Cir. 2012)